Follow the author of this article

Follow the topics within this article

Donald Trump cannot have obstructed justice because he is America's top law enforcement officer, his lawyers have argued according to leaked 20-page memo.

The letter sent in January from Mr Trump’s legal team to Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the Russia investigation, was obtained by The New York Times.

It argued that Mr Trump is the country’s “chief law enforcement officer” and therefore claims of obstructing justice “would amount to him obstructing himself”.

Mr Trump’s lawyers rejected Mr Mueller’s request for an interview, saying they have already handed over documents and allowed others to talk to his team.

They also spelled out in detail why the firing of James Comey, the FBI director, and other key moments being scrutinised do not amount to obstruction of justice.

Mr Trump appeared to pre-empt publication of the revelations in a string of tweets criticising the Russia investigation on Saturday.

He said the investigation was “so bad for our country” and asked: “Is the Special Counsel/Justice Department leaking my lawyers letters to the Fake News Media?”

There was No Collusion with Russia (except by the Democrats). When will this very expensive Witch Hunt Hoax ever end? So bad for our Country. Is the Special Counsel/Justice Department leaking my lawyers letters to the Fake News Media? Should be looking at Dems corruption instead?

It is unclear whether the memo dated January 29 2018, which was published in full on the New York Times’s website, reflects the thinking of his legal team today.

Mr Trump has a times this year seemed open to being interviewed by Mr Mueller in public comments and shook up his legal team in March.

At the heart of the letter is the president’s constitutional powers and what the occupant in the Oval Office can and cannot do - boundaries Mr Trump has tested since being elected.

Addressing Mr Mueller’s line of inquiry on claims of obstruction of justice, Mr Trump’s lawyers outlined a wide definition of those powers.

They wrote: “It remains our position that the President’s actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself, and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired.”

They also rejected a request for an interview, noting: “The records and testimony we have, pursuant to the President’s directive, already voluntarily provided to your office allow you to delve into the conversations and actions that occurred in a significant and exhaustive manner, including but not limited to the testimony of the President’s interlocutors themselves. In light of these voluntary offerings, your office clearly lacks the requisite need to personally interview the President.”

Over the coming months a battle is likely to play out as Mr Mueller weighs up whether to force Mr Trump by a subpoena to give testimony.

Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor who joined Mr Trump’s legal team in April, has suggested such a move would be unconstitutional.

He has also said that Mr Mueller hopes to end the obstruction of justice part of his investigation by September - just three months away.

In the letter, Mr Trump’s lawyers argued: “The President’s prime function as the Chief Executive ought not be hampered by requests for interview. Having him testify demeans the Office of the President before the world.”